DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 801A(4)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Assessee paid contract price as per contractual obligations on completion of work and TDS

DCIT-1(2)1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTUCTURE LIMITED., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 801A(4)(i) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Assessee paid contract price as per contractual obligations on completion of work and TDS

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

801A, which states that nothing contained in this section shall apply to a person who executes a work contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprises ". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing that the credit of TDS

ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

801A, which states that nothing contained in this section shall apply to a person who executes a work contract entered into with the undertaking or enterprises ". 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in allowing that the credit of TDS

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

TDS was allowable to be deducted. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT M/s. Patel Engineering Limited (A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the Revenue in both the years are dismissed. ITA NOs.2801/Mum/2024 & 3063/Mum/2024 19. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue against order dated 22/03/2024 passed

PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

TDS was\nallowable to be deducted. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT\n15\nITA No. 3068/Mum/2024 and others\nM/s. Patel Engineering Limited\n(A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the Revenue in both\nthe years are dismissed.\nITA NOs.2801/Mum/2024 & 3063/Mum/2024\n19. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as\nby the Revenue against

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS 2 1, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

TDS was\nallowable to be deducted. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT\n15\nITA No. 3068/Mum/2024 and others\nM/s. Patel Engineering Limited\n(A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the Revenue in both\nthe years are dismissed.\nITA NOs.2801/Mum/2024 & 3063/Mum/2024\n19. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as\nby the Revenue against

DCIT CC - 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed,\nexcept for one ground no

TDS was\nallowable to be deducted. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT\n15\nITA No. 3068/Mum/2024 and others\nM/s. Patel Engineering Limited\n(A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the Revenue in both\nthe years are dismissed.\nITA NOs.2801/Mum/2024 & 3063/Mum/2024\n19. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as\nby the Revenue against

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (TDS)2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

TDS was\nallowable to be deducted. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT\n15\nITA No. 3068/Mum/2024 and others\nM/s. Patel Engineering Limited\n(A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the Revenue in both\nthe years are dismissed.\nITA NOs.2801/Mum/2024 & 3063/Mum/2024\n19. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as\nby the Revenue against

DCIT CC- 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

TDS was\nallowable to be deducted. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT\n15\nITA No. 3068/Mum/2024 and others\nM/s. Patel Engineering Limited\n(A) is confirmed and the grounds raised by the Revenue in both\nthe years are dismissed.\nITA NOs.2801/Mum/2024 & 3063/Mum/2024\n19. These are the cross appeals filed by the assessee as well as\nby the Revenue against

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 801A(12A) of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the revenue has preferred an appeal\nbefore the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the same issue for 2010-11, 2012-\n13, 2013-14 & 2014-15?\"\n5. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A) is right

ASST CIT CEN CIR 25, MUMBAI vs. PATEL ENGINEERING LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed, whereas cross objection of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

TDS Credit on advances received; vii) Computation of income u/s.115JB; viii) Interest u/s.234B; ix) Interest u/s.234D; and x) Initiation of Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) 3. The A.O has analyzed the various Agreements entered into and arrived at a finding that the assessee is merely a contractor as is referred to in all its Agreements with the various authorities

ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ HOLDING & INVESTMENT LTD ( FOREMERLY KNOWN AS BAJAJ AUTO LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

TDS on premium paid on the lease hold land is required to be deducted by payer. He submitted that the tax of the present assessee is similar to the facts of these cases only to the extent in which the lease transaction is entered into by the assessee. The Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that in none of the above

VODAFONE INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI

801A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2011-12 and therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as claimed by the Assessee after verification of the computation as per law. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is allowed. Ground No. 6 9. Ground

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

801A of the Act for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 and therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow\nthe deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as claimed by the\nAssessee after verification of the computation as per law. In\nterms of the aforesaid, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is\nallowed.\nGround No. 6\n9. Ground

DCIT 8(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED WHICH NOW STANDS MERGED WITH IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (ICL) AND CONSEQUENTLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED), MUMBAI

801A of the Act for the Assessment Year\n2011-12 and therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow\nthe deduction under Section 80IA of the Act as claimed by the\nAssessee after verification of the computation as per law. In\nterms of the aforesaid, Ground No.5 raised by the Assessee is\nallowed.\nGround No. 6\n9. Ground

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

801A of the Act.\n8. Disallowance of unsecured loans/security deposits\n8.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned\nAO/DRP has erred in disallowing unsecured loans/security deposit amounting to\nRs 2,00,75,850 obtained by Appellant during the subject year under Section 68 of\nthe Act.\n9. Transfer Pricing adjustment - Disallowance

SAROVAR HOTELS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(3), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7348/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sarovar Hotels Dcit Circle 3(3), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th P.Ltd 42 Mittal बिधम/ Fl., R. No. 609, M. K. Chambers, Nariman Vs. Road, Point, Mumbai- 400 Mumbai-400 020 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No.Aaacs8083L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

TDS assuming that it is not for business purpose without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same be deleted. 3) The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing. 8.Before us, the ld. AR brought to our notice facts of the case and brought